Tonic Discussions 10 & 11: National Divorce

Two podcasts from the lads, both of which I actually managed to contribute to! (If even only as a 15 minute introduction in the first… I was in the entire episode 11.)

I hadn’t actually seen Ep 10 before we shot Ep 11. It was the holiday weekend and I hadn’t expected Grant to get it together so fast, so I never realized it was available until about 30 seconds before we started. Had I seen it, I think I would have addressed the “immature reaction” theme in Ep 10 more, as I think it is misguided.

That isn’t to say that I think national divorce is something to be done on a whim; the Declaration of Independence is correct on that. I also am inclined to agree that many of the “internet blowhard” type seem to underestimate the difficulties involved, and are over eager. However, I think the divorce metaphor is leading Grant and Luc astray a bit.

Grant points out that you make a commitment to a marriage, and even if your wife is a borderline personality disorder type you should try and fix that. Within that framework though, when do you draw the line and leave? When they refuse to seek treatment? When they start abusing your kids?

Separating at the drop of a hat might be immature, but that doesn’t imply there is never a time to separate.

Further, a two person, voluntary marriage is not a great analogy for a nation state; nation states are a bit closer to a polycule or other multi-person marriage. That’s relevant, because I think there is a good reason why monogamous one to one marriages are so stable for humans and not larger, equal to equal family units¹. As the units get larger they become inherently unstable as the costs of being in a larger unit begin to outweigh the benefits, and members break off to form smaller units. In the case of marriage, the optimal unit size for most people seems to be two. Once that level is reached further reductions in size means you no longer are in a marriage.

Likewise a nation state can be broken down into smaller units to adjust the cost/benefit, and generally improve the ratio in favor of benefits, but there is a long way to go before it stops being a nation state. Looking at Luc, Germany is smaller both in population² and geography than many US states, so it is really immature to expect better governance if the size of the nation state were closer to the size of Germany than the entire EU³?

So, when thinking of national divorce we don’t want to over extend the metaphor, and it is really easy to do.

But again, I think it is worth keeping in mind that dissolving a union is always going to be rough, and in the case of nation states dissolving there is always the possibility of war or other hostile relationship. That is a standard sort of cost/benefit consideration to keep in mind, however, and not a final word, definitive reason to not dissolve a nation state into smaller parts. Just because the costs might be high doesn’t mean the benefits are not higher, and so we can’t reject things out of hand.

(Along the same lines is John’s odd comment that national divorce certainly will not keep the crazies from coming after you. Of course it won’t guarantee it, but it gives you a better chance that they won’t. Just because your crazy ex might keep causing trouble for you if you leave doesn’t mean you are better off sharing a house together.)

I do think Grant has a point that there is still room for political change to sort things, and I personally agree. I don’t think national divorce is inevitable in our lifetimes (long term is certainly is, but that’s just how national life cycles go) but I think we need to understand it is a possibility, and indeed might be the best choice. It is entirely possible it is not possible to rein in the federal government and get back to a functional federalism, and if that is not possible I do not think that peaceable coexistence within a single nation state is possible long term. It is worth thinking about how that outcome can be made to go as smoothly as possible, I think.

Now, go listen to the podcasts, and tell me your thoughts in the comments!

1. I say “equal to equal” to differentiate between husband-wife family relationships and grandparent-parent-children relationships. The latter would be more like an extended family or clan living together, which is quite stable but it is clearly headed by the grandparents that the younger generations see as social superiors, not equals. An equal to equal set up would be lots of adults without the inherent social superior structure of family lineage to create an agreed upon social superior/inferior hierarchy. However, even the clan structure isn’t terribly stable, as evidenced by the fact that it hasn’t been the norm for family structure for quite some time, and even when and where it was, it wasn’t generally literally everyone living under the same roof under the same rules. Families did split off and form new clans or smaller splinter groups when things got too big or they found the larger family too at odds with their preferences.

2. CDH in the comments helpfully corrects me that Germany currently has a population around 85 million, a fair bit more than CA and TX combined. For some reason I was thinking Germany had a population closer to 35 million, but I have no idea why. Maybe I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt for their so very small GDP? In any case, mea culpa.

3. Not to pick on Luc, but Europeans seem to really underestimate the scale of the USA. As the saying goes, in the USA 200 years is old, and in Europe 200 miles is far.